Our primary server had issues at our hosting provider and had to be restored from backup. Posts made after 5/20/2018 11:59PM CDT (UTC -5) and before 5/22/2018 3:00pm CDT may be missing and are not expected to return.

Generally, about half of both buffs and nerfs seem to happen for reasons of trying to get closer to realism. The other roughly half seems to be about balance. I'm not sure why 'this is how things are in real life' can not be a justification for a nerf. It just seems like a different way of phrasing it.
Or maybe you mean that the case of Arm Locks was overwhelmingly balance-driven as opposed to realism-driven TSh Aim/Attack case?

That to me is assuming there is a relationship between realism and nerfing.

I don't think this is the case, sometime the nerf will be realistic, sometimes the buff will be realistic. Sometime on balance neither will be appropriate and the current RAW will be most realistic. But importantly those decisions will not be based on what other ones are (i.e well we're up to 15 nerfs and 10 buffs so far so we need a buff here) but on what is right for that situation.

I think you looking for a system related pattern here when people to ore closely model reality, but the only pattern is that they are trying to more closely model reality (within the bound of reasonable playability as they see it)

We've had a few threads like this recently, and you seem keen to draw a wider meaning for GURPS 'core RAW' out of much smaller things.

Speaking for myself my double taking at describing stab and push as a rapid strike is just that, not my opening argument for where I stand on RAW literalism and where it sits on a realism/abstraction sliding scale. Because there's no one answer to that, because RAW literalism doesn't occupy the same place on that scale for everything situation it explicitly covers (let alone for the ones it does not).

Ok leaving aside you've ignored the majority of my reply to you in order to make the 'regeneration is to HP as Spending CP is to CP', comparison. Let's tackle that

It's not.

Those CP are spent to leverage some other effect. CP goes up and down according to both sides actions and is leveraged in far more complex ways than the way Regeneration restores HP.

Sorry I think I have already pointed out the differences between a grappling contest using TG and armed combat contest using normal attacks and defences.

For me there's always going to be scope for 'more realism' but you do obviously reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of play value. But as we said earlier where that point is varies of all of us.

However no system is at the same base line for this in every aspect of play, so in some areas there is more scope to add more in before reaching that point.

Grappling for me is one in GURPS. Stabbing and working the blade in the wound for me is more akin to GURPS Grappling in TG, than it is to rapid attack in Melee.

I could house rules the standard melee combat rules (but I suspect they might end up aping TG anyway)

Okay, I guess we've made the positions about working the blade clear, and they aren't going to add much new interesting stuff to the discussion. It just keeps branching into side issues that don't seem to help to illustrate the other points. There are both differences and similarities between bladework and grappling, but we see them differently. *shrug*

Literalism in this context just means the rules are describing what happened exactly. That's not the same as the rules are describing what happened realistically.

Given we just had an entire thread about step and wait, I find your point that the TS crowd what to make realism (not literalism) more difficult a bit odd.

I think it more that if there is such thing as a TS crowd, it's more that they want to reflect more nuance in describing things. Perhaps more importantly they want to amend rules so that they more closely match what they are modelling.

Making aimed (sighted) shots is not about they felt the need to give the AoA penalties to aimed shot actions. It about the fact that they recognised that when your sighting down you gun you lose situational awareness.

At the same time they pointed out that unsighted shooting should have other benefits over sighted shooting as well.

In case of TSh AoA rules, it's probably a case of both striving for more literalism and for more verisimilitude. Though probably the playtesters and author know better, and I could well be wrong on that one (I'm getting to the chronological mistake bit in the next post . . . ).

I don't think TSh players/GMs/authors want to make realism more difficult, but make some actions difficult. Not saying it is wrong - I'm mostly convinced the intent is right, even though I have some gamist disagreements about the execution of the intent (but which are difficult to address outside either Alternate GURPS or an edition change).

I think 'more nuance' usually goes hand in hand with 'more literalism'. E.g. all the new Techniques in MA imply that the player gets to make more precise choices about what is happening. A spinning kick is no longer a fluffy description of an AoA or a kick - it is now invoked if the PC takes the Technique, and it has precise modifiers and effects.

That's not my point. My point was only that your chronology was reversed. There was no "Tactical Shooting crowd" until tactical shooting existed. Requiring the attack following the Aim to be All-Out was an innovation by Hans, as far as I can tell.

Hmm. Somehow I envisioned at least some amount support for the new ruling in the playtest/review group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

As for my thoughts on Aim and accuracy, the world will need to wait a bit longer for those, but I can assure you that they are several thousand words long. :-)

Oh well, I've said what I could about it back then. Besides, we're in a public area. ^_^

Quote:

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I don't understand the relevance here.

It's a side note about why I was leery of making normal Attacks rarely-desired as per TSh.

Wow. People on the Internet, including this very forum, seem to be using 'rant' without it starting fights. (Besides, I referred to my own posts with it, does it grant me R-word privileges?) OK, I'll rephrase:
Boxes with Harsh Realism are a fraction of changes that largely have a 'make certain things more difficult' vibe. (And I'm saying this neutrally - sometimes things do need to be more difficult, sometimes they don't.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

You're generalizing. I said that the chronology of ONE thing - Aim followed by AoA - is not supported by a "tactical shooting crowd" "demanding" a change to a rule. I also did not offer an opinion of the rule itself, only pointed out that your portrayal of how the rule came about does not match what actually happened.

Just for the record:
The word 'demand' was used within the context of a rule, as in 'the ruleset demands that character does X by method Y', roughly comparable to 'the ruleset requires that ...'. Or similar to the function of 'the prerequisite to doing X is first doing Y'. That sort of thing.

I'm not saying SJG will send Men In Black down the door of anyone not following the newest book. ^_^

Quote:

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I've merged these two subthreads into one reply. The change to Aim/AoA is indeed a nerf - if you want the benefit to spending a second of Aim, you must take AoA and lose your defenses for the rest of your turn. My sole point was chrological - basically pointing out that your implication that the cause-effect was looking at game mechanics and that led to a rules nerf. Not what happened. Hans made a call about what happens in real life mapping to AoA, not Attack. Any buffs/nerfs (and in this case it did make it a more costly option to aim/shoot) were incidental.

Point taken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

But note that such things can be mitigated with tactics. For one, it suggests that if you're going to use aimed fire, you want friends with you to lay down cover fire to force Fright Checks that have the foes keep their heads down. it also suggests shooting from cover or by surprise. Both of which are exactly the tactics that are used in the real-world, so I'm sure Hans is still sitting there saying Mission Accomplished. But with a German accent.

Ooh, formalized Fright Checks for Suppressive Fire were one of the best additions, ja!

That to me is assuming there is a relationship between realism and nerfing.

I don't think this is the case, sometime the nerf will be realistic, sometimes the buff will be realistic. Sometime on balance neither will be appropriate and teh current RAW will be most realistic. But importantly those decision will not be based on what other ones are (i.e well we're up to 15 nerfs and 10 buffs so far so we need a buff here) but on what is right for that situation.

Precisely. Most of both nerfs and buffs tend to be caused by one of (a) attempts to make things more realistic and (b) attempts to fix game balance. It's the interplay of the two that is sometimes complicated.

For the record: I don't see 'nerf' and 'buff' as necessarily bad words.

"Nerfing" is something that's normally done in the context of game balance, not realism. From that perspective, it might be fair to say that changing a maneuver or other rule to better reflect reality isn't "nerfing" even if the end result is to make that thing less powerful or effective.

This eliminates the ambiguity, though you'll have to adjust your vocabulary.

Precisely. Most of both nerfs and buffs tend to be caused by one of (a) attempts to make things more realistic and (b) attempts to fix game balance. It's the interplay of the two that is sometimes complicated.

For the record: I don't see 'nerf' and 'buff' as necessarily bad words.

The bold bit is the key thing here. They are two separate things that do not relate too each other. Attempts to fix imbalance and attempts to emulate reality are often entirely separate. So when you try and plot a relationship between them you risk creating aspects and intention that don't actually exist outside of the need to create them to link these two distinct things.

In case of TSh AoA rules, it's probably a case of both striving for more literalism and for more verisimilitude. Though probably the playtesters and author know better, and I could well be wrong on that one (I'm getting to the chronological mistake bit in the next post . . . ).

I don't think TSh players/GMs/authors want to make realism more difficult, but make some actions difficult. Not saying it is wrong - I'm mostly convinced the intent is right, even though I have some gamist disagreements about the execution of the intent (but which are difficult to address outside either Alternate GURPS or an edition change).

I think 'more nuance' usually goes hand in hand with 'more literalism'. E.g. all the new Techniques in MA imply that the player gets to make more precise choices about what is happening. A spinning kick is no longer a fluffy description of an AoA or a kick - it is now invoked if the PC takes the Technique, and it has precise modifiers and effects.

Again as above I don't think it was drive to make some actions moire difficult, but to make some actions more realistic, difficulty was an side effect of the change not the driver of it. In some instances that meant changing the balance in game effects. Sighted shooting lost it's defence but gained an extra +1 (and following shots bonuses), unsighted get other positive mods but loses the ability to aim and defend.

I'm condensing branches again.
Okay, I guess we've made the positions about working the blade clear, and they aren't going to add much new interesting stuff to the discussion. It just keeps branching into side issues that don't seem to help to illustrate the other points. There are both differences and similarities between bladework and grappling, but we see them differently. *shrug*

Again as above I don't think it was drive to make some actions moire difficult, but to make some actions more realistic, difficulty was an side effect of the change not the driver of it. In some instances that meant changing the balance in game effects. Sighted shooting lost it's defence but gained an extra +1 (and following shots bonuses), unsighted get other positive mods but loses the ability to aim and defend.

There's the reason and the effect. The reason for wanting to make these actions more difficult was the wish to make them more realistic.
As for follow-up shots, it's a mystery (to me) why at the beginning of 4e the mechanic was ditched: back in 3e, I remember there being a mechanic for keeping most of a gun's Acc on following turns.